Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, deals with the penalties for breaching protection orders. It plays a crucial role in ensuring that the respondent complies with the court’s directives aimed at safeguarding the aggrieved woman. This provision specifically targets violations of protection or interim protection orders issued under Section 18 of the Act. Below is a detailed look at the penalties involved and how Indian courts have interpreted this section in recent rulings.
What Is The Penalty for Breach of Protection Orders Under Section 31 of Domestic Violence Act?
If the respondent violates a protection order or an interim protection order, it constitutes a punishable offence under the Domestic Violence Act. The offender may face simple or rigorous imprisonment for up to one year. Alternatively, the Magistrate may impose a fine of up to ₹20,000, or both imprisonment and fine.
The Magistrate who issued the original protection order will usually try the breach case. While framing charges, the Magistrate may also include offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or other relevant IPC provisions. If applicable, charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, may also be added based on the facts of the case.
Recent Judicial Interpretations of Section 31
1. Akshay Thakur v. State of H.P. & Ors. – Himachal Pradesh High Court (2025)
The Himachal Pradesh High Court clarified that Section 31 applies only to breaches of “protection orders” or “interim protection orders” under Section 18 of the DV Act. The court held that failing to comply with other reliefs such as maintenance, residence, or compensation orders does not amount to an offence under Section 31. The court adopted a strict and literal interpretation, asserting that criminal statutes must be narrowly construed. The language of Section 31, therefore, limits punishment strictly to protection order violations.
2. Suneesh v. State of Kerala – Kerala High Court (2022)
In this case, the Kerala High Court ruled that Section 31 does not cover breaches of monetary relief or residence orders under Sections 20 and 19. The court applied the principle of ejusdem generis, observing that the legislature intended Section 31 to address only violations of protection-related directives. Consequently, the court quashed proceedings initiated for non-payment of maintenance, emphasizing that such issues should be resolved under other legal provisions.
3. Anish Pramod Patel v. Kiran Jyot Maini – Delhi High Court (2023)
The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with maintenance orders does not fall under Section 31. The court explained that the Domestic Violence Act aims to offer protection and rehabilitation to victims. Thus, not to criminalize the non-payment of maintenance. It clarified that such violations should be handled under Section 20(6) of the DV Act. Moreover, through procedures outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Conclusion
Recent court rulings firmly establish that Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act strictly covers breaches of protection orders only. Courts have consistently rejected the use of Section 31 for non-compliance with maintenance, residence, or monetary orders. This focused interpretation prevents misuse and ensures that criminal penalties apply solely to violations of protection orders under Section 18.
